About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unread


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 0

Wednesday, August 29, 2007 - 4:41pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit

Outside

Whether or not Republican Senator Larry Craig did or did not solicit sex in the mensroom of an airport, one has to wonder what the policeman in the stall next to him was doing at the time. Just as with George Michael, what's a guy to do when he's propositioned by an undercover honey pot? How are the police trained to take up this assignment, with kneepads and a sock stuffed in the fly of their pants?

Such set-ups don't exist in NYC, (so far as I know - but they do occasionally pose as street hookers, and I was almost arrested for looking at a woman on East 85th street in 1995) but woe betide you if a policeman does want to arrest you for using a public bathroom or leaving a subway through a secondary exit. About a decade ago, I was exiting the Third Avenue express subway stop because my station, the next local stop, was closed for repairs. When I got to the top of the steps in the median level, two cops had a crying young, handcuffed, belly-up against the wall, and they grabbed me, mockingly asking why I was using the "back exit." I asked them whether they had heard that the train was skipping my stop or not?

I asked if I was under arrest, they told me to get out of the station. I asked the man whom they had handcuffed, belly up against the wall, who did not speak English, if he had done anything. He said no, I said not to worry, that the police could not do anything to him and I would stay with him if he wanted. You should have seen the anger on the cop's faces - they didn't speak Spanish. They demanded to know what I was doing and I told them that I had told the guy his rights and not to worry that they couldn't treat him the same way cops in his home country would, that in America we have rights. I offered my services as an interpreter and offered them my ID (A good habit I learned from having been arrested for being white in the wrong neighbourhood several dozen times.) The cops released him and held me while they checked for warrants I knew they wouldn't find. The tearful guy - a kid really - was grateful. I told him never to worry about the cops if he hadn't done anything wrong. The cops apologized to me and told me that people hung out in the tunnels to do drugs and "other stuff." (Duh!) I said I knew, but until my station reopened they'd be seeing me on a regular basis. God, what fun!

Now we see the morale of the Republican Senate, with cowards who have nothing to win by standing up for a man who plead guilty to misdemeanor disorderly conduct, coming forward and criticizing him for "disgusting" behavior of which they have no proof. Maybe the man was guilty, but if so, he was certainly entrapped, and the DA was happy to accept a plea deal. Well, those Senators will win the God Hates Fags vote, I suppose. Democrats never turn on their own, even after they are impeached, filmed accepting bribes, or their pregnant interns disappear and they lose a primary challenge. When Republicans sniff blood, out come the long knives. What gives?

Ted Keer

(Edited by Ted Keer on 8/29, 5:52pm)




Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 1

Wednesday, August 29, 2007 - 5:31pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Ted,

I love it! These are your "public" servants in action, government goons who spend their time harassing innocent bystanders, because they weren't hired by private individuals to defend their customers' rights. If they were, they wouldn't waste their time on this kind of nonsense.

But because they feed at the public trough, they can adopt the role of morality police who, instead of fighting real crime, resort to the kind of mischief that no one cares enough to pay for voluntarily. If private police were hired solely to protect and defend the rights of their customers, do you think they'd be engaged in this kind of pointless and disgraceful conduct?! Of course not; they'd be wasting time and resources doing what they weren't getting paid for.

- Bill



Post 2

Wednesday, August 29, 2007 - 5:43pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Well, at least I took the proper role as their employer (in the 3rd Avenue case) so cut me some slack!

(The problem was policy, not who signed the paycheck. Private security guards aren't born with halos, and kill about as many innocent people in NYC on average as do the NYPD.)

[I include bouncers as private police here.]

(Edited by Ted Keer on 8/30, 4:21pm)




Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Post 3

Thursday, August 30, 2007 - 3:49pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
The interesting part about all of this is that the Senator plead guilty, so managed to avoid a trial where the facts could be presented and evaluated in an objective manner.  And because he avoided that, he can now claim that he wasn't guilty.  Since there was no trial, he can pretend that there was no evidence, and he only plead guilty to avoid the hassle.

That is, because he plead guilty, he can claim he's innocent!

Fine.  He can do that all he wants.  But I don't think anyone should treat that as a valid argument, or give him the benefit of the doubt based on that.  It's ridiculous.  Since  he's the one who avoided the trial by pleading guilty, he can't use the lack of a trial (or presentation of evidence) as evidence of his innocence.  This manipulation of the truth is reason enough to want him out of office.

Also the fact that a DA accepted a plea bargain means nothing.  That's far too routine, saves them effort, and gives them a  certain conviction.

And I don't understand why he "was certainly entrapped".  What evidence was there for that?  I was under the impression that entrapment has a very specific meaning in these kinds of cases, and would make the case worthless.  Just being in the bathroom isn't entrapment, just as dressing like a prostitute isn't.  It still requires an active initiation by the other person.




Post 4

Thursday, August 30, 2007 - 4:19pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Does any Objectivist think plea bargains are a legitimate device? I certainly don't. So far as impressions, it seems Craig is guilty of the alleged offense - and it is an abuse of public property. My initial interest was the fact that the Republicans were happy to lynch him as soon as the mere allegations got out, while Congressman Bribe Iceboxcash (D) is still in office.

Joe, I'm not sure of the legal definition, but anytime a police officer pretends he's any interested party in a crime before there is any reason to suspect the other party is intent on crime seems wrong. It would be one thing if they had Craig on security cameras, another that the cop was loitering in the mensroom himself. And don't take my statements to mean that I don't think Craig, if he did what is alleged, is blameless either.

Ted

(Edited by Ted Keer on 8/30, 4:25pm)




Post 5

Friday, August 31, 2007 - 9:16amSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
I agree that in general I find these "stings" such as the one they did to George Michael distasteful - HOWEVER - in this case, there were complaints about it.  I mean, if you are in an airport, do you want to go to the bathroom and find people having sex there?  It is definitely a "disturbing the peace" type issue - though not a whole lot more in my mind.

And anyway, who hangs out in an airport bathroom at noon, in another state, and he was not on a scheduled flight?




Post 6

Saturday, September 1, 2007 - 11:22amSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Joe and Kurt seem to get beyond the "victimless crime" cliches to some of the nuances in this case.

I weigh in on some of the broader issues about "Public Sex, Anonymous Sex," in this blog entry.



Post 7

Saturday, September 1, 2007 - 6:46pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit

Shooting Fish in a Barrel

I have absolutely no problem with any methods such as surveillance and the presence of undercover observers. But in both this and the George Michael incident the police were apparently themselves soliciting attention.

I had a friend who lived on East 85th street in the mid 1990's. I went to visit him. Undercover "hookers" (quite attractive women) were making come-ons and the police were arresting anyone who had approached or talked to the "hookers." One of the women said something to me, and I responded with a friendly retort, but luckily then entered the lobby of his building. My friend, watching from his balcony, assured me that if I had not entered his building, I would have been handcuffed at the next corner.

If you want to abate an actual nuisance, there are ways of dealing with it. Shooting fish in a barrel to "generate numbers" is not one of them.

Ted Keer

PS, Kurt, I haven't been "following" this story. My main interest was in seeing that McCain and others were going out in press to denounce the man based on the allegations alone - while I cannot recall the last Democrat who has been denounced by his own party for anything short of eating babies roasted on a spit. But assuming what you say is true - and I do find it quite credible, why did they let the guy plea bargain?

(Edited by Ted Keer on 9/01, 6:54pm)




Post 8

Sunday, September 2, 2007 - 8:22pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
They charged him with stuff they couldn't prove - standard tactic.  They could probably prove some sort of disturbing the peace - really if he had not been a pol it no one would have noticed.



Post 9

Monday, September 3, 2007 - 2:02pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Leaving aside the impropriety of plea bargains per se, one has to ask what purpose charging sexual miscreants with misdemeanor "disorderly conduct" is? In NYC such a charge will apparently get you about a $50 fine, or it did in 1992. I was once given a ticket for disorderly conduct by a police officer who was embarrassed by the fact that I who am white and my boyfriend who was black were not engaging in a drug deal, but were simply walking from his grandmother's apartment to the subway. The cop never submitted the ticket to the court, so I wasted half a day on fighting a charge on that wasn't even on the docket. Meanwhile, I watched about 50 people plead innocent or guilty to disorderly conduct, public urination, indecent exposure, and public intoxication. Those who plead guilty paid $15, those who plead not guilty were found guilty and fined $50. I had to suffer the indignity of having my charges dismissed without the chance for me to plead my case. Assuming the person were guilty of the real charges, wouldn't making that charge a matter of public record serve much better to stop the undesirable behavior?



Post to this thread
User ID Password reminder or create a free account.